Talk:Tesla coil/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Tesla coils produce high current?

Is anyone bothered by the second sentence? "[Tesla coils are] used to produce high voltage, relatively high current, high frequency alternating current electricity." High current? I think it should be changed to "low current". Although Tesla coils can be built in different sizes and power ratings, the secondary current from even high power examples seldom exceeds a few milliamps, but this is not the point. I think the point of this introductory sentence should be that, like other types of step-up transformer, Tesla coils transform the current in the primary down to a lower value in the secondary circuit, while they transform the voltage up. So the current from the secondary terminal is very low, relative to the current in the primary circuit. The sentence originally read "low current" but was changed, and has been changed back several times. --ChetvornoTALK 06:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless someone comes up with a good reason not to, I'm going to change the first sentence to "low current". --ChetvornoTALK 10:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
This needs to be qualified to "High current compared to, say, a Van de Graaff generator or Wimshurst machine producing comparable voltages" (but these machines make DC, in contrast to the AC produced by a Tesla coil). --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I feel that's an unnecessary complication in the introductory sentences. And I don't think the nontechnical readers who will be reading this introductory sentence will know or care about the current output of those other sources. It is "low current" compared to the current from the wall plug in the primary circuit, compared to other 120V AC operated equipment, in the same sense as the output is also "high voltage" compared to those things. --ChetvornoTALK 16:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to try again. I think its misleading for the intro to say Tesla coils produce "high current". Tesla coils, like other step-up transformers, increase the voltage and decrease the current. Even the big ones don't produce more than a milliamp or so. I think the 2nd sentence should be changed to "low current". Anybody with me? --ChetvornoTALK 18:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The sentence "Compared to electrostatic machines, a Tesla coil produces a higher current." was added to the intro. Forgive me for harping on this, but I don't think that's enough. I think the intro has to have "low current" in it somewhere. From the POV of electrical experimenters and techies, a Tesla coil produces "high current" because we're comparing it to the other source of HV discharges, electrostatic machines. But general readers don't have this POV, and the introduction is supposed to be written for the general reader. From his POV a Tesla coil produces low current. I think general readers would be surprised to learn that the dramatic streamers produced by a Tesla coil have far less current in them than a flashlight bulb. --ChetvornoTALK 14:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The term 'low current' has no specific meaning; the current depends on how powerful the Tesla coil is; some Tesla coils may run to megawatts and can carry amps of current. High voltage actually has a wikipedia page for it, and Tesla coils are clearly high voltage. Whether Tesla coils are usually high frequency I doubt also, that usually denotes operating frequencies in the megahertz, which Tesla coils don't usually operate at.GliderMaven (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Remember, this is in the introduction, which should be written for the POV of nontechnical people. Low current means low with respect to the primary circuit, just as high voltage means high with respect to the primary, and high frequency means high with respect to the frequencies tranformers usually operate at, 50-60 Hz. Regardless, our personal opinions on the subject don't matter. WP articles must be based on WP:RSs, and the five I cited support the original description. --ChetvornoTALK 22:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
On that basis, all transformers are limited to low currents. It's trivial to source that transformers convert low voltage, high current to high voltage, low current; and I note that that's exactly the way one of the 'references' attempts to cite this.
The defining useful feature of Tesla coils as a transformer is the high voltage; they are specifically designed with a large air gap to avoid shorting out the secondary. But there is nothing about Tesla coils in general that guarantees low power or currents any more than with any other transformer.GliderMaven (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I mean, this is actually false; Tesla coils aren't used to give low currents. Low currents in electrical engineering terms, if the term has any meaning at all, are usually measured in microamps. None of these dubious references indicate that Tesla coils can only give small currents.GliderMaven (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I see that Chetvorno is continuing to edit warring into the lead the idea that Tesla coils are somehow magically limited to low current use; and is misquoting numerous sources to do this.
This is absolutely false.
Not only can Tesla coils be designed to carry any amount of power and current at all, but Tesla coils nearly always use pulsed operation. This means that for any given input current and voltage, the output pulse train can carry much, much higher currents and voltages, higher even than went into the input. It's not limited by the normal transformer equation.GliderMaven (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not trying to edit war. Those are general references. Where are your references that tesla coils can produce high current? --ChetvornoTALK 13:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Nothing about output current (high or low) should be added unless it is directly referenced in reliable sources. That should solve this dispute. - MrX 13:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
My assertion is supported by 5 reliable sources. How much more support do you want? --ChetvornoTALK 13:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, GliderMaven, you have a point. The average current output of most coils is obviously low; a 100 W 100 kV coil cannot produce more than 1 mA. But the pulses are very brief so the instantaneous current can be high. I didn't think of that. So in spite of what most RSs say, I won't press the issue. --ChetvornoTALK 14:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I have restored the low current statement. Although the sources (probably) refer to average current or current that is in phase with voltage, we have to follow our sources. If there are sources that discuss the high current peaks at the output, then they can be added as well, but that does not necessarily negate the low current statement. Perhaps there is a source that reconciles these two seemingly contradicting statements? - MrX 14:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
If you read the references carefully none of the references are reliable sources for Tesla coils always giving low currents, only that in some particular (common) situations they will do. It's OR to combine them to claim that they always do so. In order for them to always give low current there would have to be some reason, but there isn't any given, and there isn't one, they actually can give very high currents and voltages simultaneously.GliderMaven (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't really make sense. If the sources are reliable, then the assertions in those sources should also be deemed reliable. Also, the text of this article does not say "Tesla coils always giving low currents", it says "...is used to produce high-voltage, low-current, high frequency alternating-current electricity." The reason the current is low is because the voltage is high, and because of the relationship between the primary and secondary circuit. The output power cannot exceed the input power. Power = Current times voltage (P=IR), meaning that if power remains constant, as voltage increases, current decreases, and vice versa.
The term "low current" in this context is relative to the primary current, just as "high voltage" is relative to primary voltage. If you have a proposal for rewording the content to make it less ambiguous, or if you have better sources that say otherwise, I'm sure we would all be interested in knowing about them. - MrX 15:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
That's right. The sources are perfectly reliable, and they give low current, along with high voltage, as a general characteristic of Tesla coils:
"A Tesla coil produces a high voltage, very low current discharge from a single electrode..." - Plesch, High Vacuum Techniques
"Tesla invented a device - the Tesla coil - that converts relatively low voltage current into high voltage, low current at high frequencies." - Constable, A Century of Innovation
"The primary and secondary [of a Tesla coil] function as a step-up transformer which converts relatively low-voltage, high current to high-voltage, low current at high frequencies." - Science First Tesla coil, instructions and applications
And as you say, MrX, the tradeoff between voltage and current is not dependent on the turns ratio, but on conservation of energy; a device that increases the average voltage must decrease the average current. --ChetvornoTALK 16:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Research Paper

Feel free to fill this in with High School Level research paper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.108.115.26 (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Tesla Coils used in Spark Gap transmitters?

The claim that "Tesla coil circuits were used commercially in Sparkgap radio transmitters ..." Is completely misleading.

The Tesla Coil is a Resonant Transformer used to generate high voltages, but a Spark gap transmitter is almost the reverse.

In a Spark Gap transmitter a non-resonant transformer coil (eg Ruhmkorff Induction coil) is used to create a high-voltage spark which generates RF energy over a wide range of frequencies. A tuned circuit is then use to selectively remove all but a relatively narrow band of frequencies, as well as to match this RF energy to the antenna.

In a Tesla coil a similar high voltage Spark is used to excite a High-Q Resonant Transformer which uses the Q multiplication to step up the voltage to generate very high voltages.

To summarise: Both the Spark Gap Transmitter and the Telsa coil are supplied with energy by a High Voltage spark. Note that Ruhmkorff and others developed the Induction coil decades before Tesla began using it.

In the Spark Gap Transmitter, the Resonant Transformer is used to reject wanted frequencies in order to avoid interference. There is no need for very high voltages in a transmitter as most antennas are relatively low impedance.

In the Tesla coil however, the sole function of the Resonant transformer is to step up the voltage. There is no concern in the Tesla coil to remove unwanted frequencies (although this does happen as a by-product).

So the basic design aim of a Spark Gap transmitter and a Tesla coil are entirely different.

Unfortunately the Tesla "Fan Boys" are desperate to prove that Telsa invented everything, so I know by past experience that if I remove the offending text it will be promptly re-instated. Gutta Percha (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The statement in the introduction that the Tesla circuit was used in spark-gap transmitters is supported by 3 references. This subject has already been thoroughly debated on this Talk page; anyone interested should read the debate in the archives. It contains numerous additional sources all supporting the existing position, which could be added to the article. In brief, the Tesla circuit acts both as a high Q filter and to generate high voltages, so it is used in both applications. --ChetvornoTALK 15:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Except that using a Tuned Circuit for both purposes pre-dates Tesla by some years, and this is also well documented

("The History of Electrical Resonance" by Julian Blanchard describes how Maxwell developed the maths behind Voltage and Current magnification at resonance, and how Hertz drew the Selectivity curves of his resonant Trasmitter).

Tesla popularised (and further developed) the "Tesla Coil" but he didn't invent the Tuned Circuit or the Transformer.

It is a circular argument to claim that because the Tesla Coil makes use of a Tuned Circuit, then Tesla invented the Tuned Circuit.

The Tesla Coil was an evolutionary dead end. Had Tesla not existed it would have made little difference to the development of the Radio Transmitter.

See also "Hertzian Wave Wireless Telegraphy" by Dr J.A. Flemming.

Gutta Percha (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

All covered in the previous discussion and references. --ChetvornoTALK 07:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The "Wireless transmission and reception" section

The Wireless transmission and reception section consists almost entirely of pseudoscientific WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS based on Tesla's discredited 110 year old ideas on global power transmission. It is written deceptively (WP:YESPOV) as if Tesla's 19th century long range wireless power transmission notions were accepted engineering facts. The truth, as stated in WP:RSs, is that Tesla coils have only been used for short range power transmission, in 110 years all attempts to use them for long-range transmission have failed, Tesla's ideas on non-Hertzian waves and atmospheric conduction are not supported by modern authorities, there is no evidence Tesla ever transmitted power wirelessly beyond a few hundred yards, and the consensus of modern scientists is that his World Wireless System schemes would not have worked. Although the section appears to be copiously sourced, virtually all are WP:PRIMARY 110 year old sources from one man, Tesla, with the addition of a few non-WP:RS pseudoscientific authors. Primary sources must be backed up by secondary sources (WP:PSTS). Patents, the main sources in the section, are not WP:RSs on the feasibility or workability of an invention, see WP:PATENTS.

I propose to rewrite the section to meet WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFIABILITY standards. --ChetvornoTALK 20:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I didn't see anything really salvageable. It was the same type of nonsense that we've seen in World Wireless System. Not to say that some of the principles aren't true, but to try to portray them as something novel by using fringe terminology is blatantly non-encyclopedic.- MrX 22:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree, nothing salvageable. I might stick in a little properly sourced replacement section later, as Tesla did use his Tesla coils for experiments in short range power transmission. BTW, I wanted to say I thought you did a great job removing the fringe stuff at World Wireless System. --ChetvornoTALK

Reorganization and rewrite

Addressing the defects mentioned above, rewrote the "Wireless power" section to replace the WP:FRINGE, WP:OR pseudoscience with a more objective, properly sourced account of Tesla's wireless power experiments. In addition, this article is really messy and disorganized. Rearranged the content, deleting the ambiguously-named "Popularity" and "Instances and devices" sections, moving all their applications into the "Applications" section and content on the magnifying transmitter into the "History" section. Reformatted the incongruously huge circuit diagrams into a gallery with photos of the Colorado Springs magnifying transmitter.

Now, if only someone would rewrite the text, which looks like it was written by middle-school students from old do-it-yourself Mechanix Illustrated magazine articles, we could have a halfway decent article. --ChetvornoTALK 16:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I modified several sections to improve accuracy, but I didn't try to tackle the Wireless Power section... yet. Please feel free to change as necessary. Update: The wireless power section actually looks to be pretty accurate. Need to check the references a bit more...Bert (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually I already tackled the Wireless Power section - as mentioned above, that was the part I rewrote. That's not to say it doesn't need improvement :) Your work looks good, you introduced a lot of sophisticated concepts in RF resonance, although I wonder if it should be in the first section of the article; it's going to be rather a lot for non-technically-educated readers to comprehend. Cheers. --ChetvornoTALK 02:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Images do not display in Firefox

The images on this page "contain errors" and do not display in Firefox. 132.235.44.114 (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

As a weapon?

I would imagine a lot of people to have heard of Tesla coils primarily through the Command & Conquer: Red Alert games. As such, it seems odd that there's no mention here of this application. While I doubt a real Tesla coil could discriminate between friendly and enemy units the way the C&C ones do, it would be nice to be able to find and add some information about the usefulness (or lack thereof) of the Tesla coil as a weapon in the real world, and hence whether the use it is put to in C&C is fact or fiction. — Smjg (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

We really can only write about something that tangential if someone else has already written about it in a reliable source. You may be interested in Electrolaser though, which is similar. Gigs (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Tesla coil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Skin depth

  • the 'skin depth' of human flesh at typical Tesla coil frequencies is still of the order of 60 inches (150 cm) or more.[69][70][71][72][73]

Every one of these citations is unreliable and irrelevant. The first one is 404, the second one is an old geocities page that doesn't even talk about skin depth in flesh as opposed to metal, and the rest are just random posts about skin effect in metallic conductors, and one uncited note that it's probably more like 2.5 inches. Skin depth is a function of permeability and resistivity, so the human body, which isn't as good a conductor as copper, would likely indeed have a deeper skin depth for a given frequency, but no current citation supports any particular depth claim. I'm going to remove these bogus/synthesis citations and replace the text with a more vague claim that skin depth is deeper in flesh than it is in metal, which should not be too contentious, but it would be good to find a source for that as well. Gigs (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Replaced with sourced claim that skin depth of body tissues is greater than the thickness of the body. This does not mean I agree with the section. This section has a great deal of additional dubious unsourced content. The whole section needs to be rewritten and supported with proper sources. --ChetvornoTALK 09:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Tesla coil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tesla coil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

No mention article of Tesla Coil on Display at L.A. Griffth Park Observatory.

A Tesla coil from the 1930s has its on Tesla Coil Room at the Los Angeles Griffth Park Observatory,Los Anageess ,California USA No mention of it in the excellent article! Mortedik (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I am doing a complete rewrite on the History section and have a paragraph on the Griffith Park coil. I will probably add it to the article within a few weeks. --ChetvornoTALK 05:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

History section rewrite

Rewrote and expanded the "History" section. Deleted the "Wireless power" section since this subject is now covered in the History section and the "Wireless power" section contained inadequately sourced WP:fringe WP:pseudoscience myths that Tesla achieved long distance wireless power transmission. --ChetvornoTALK 12:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Importance of the secondary being 1/4 wavelength or odd multiple of it

Tesla in his patent's, states that the secondary must be 1/4 wavelength or a odd multiple of 1/4 wavelength to achieve the highest voltage. in antenna theory this is also true. maximum voltage and minimum voltage alternate every 1/4 wavelength, also note when voltage is at minimum amperage is at maximum. This is also important in determining the length of cable or wave guides between transmitters and antennas. Also note Inductive loading will effect the length of a antenna, one can see this easily with CB antenna. [1] If I remember correctly I read Tesla put cables in the ground to improve the ground of his Wardenclyffe Tower construction. Likely the first use of a ground plane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostcowboy (talk • contribs) 13:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Properly descriptions of the secondary coil
As you say, it is roughly true that the Tesla coil resonates at 1/4λ. In order to prove it it is necessary to correct the equivalent circuit of many Tesla coils. For example, this stray capacitance descriptions are incorrect. [2] Standing wave can not be simulated in this figure. This is correct. [3] Moreover, although the following description relates to wireless power transfer, it will be applicable to Tesla coil as it is. In case of Tesla coil, when driven at serial resonance frequency, progressive wave of approximately 1/4λ is observed in the secondary coil. In the case of wireless power transfer, no standing wave is observed. There is only such a difference.
Magnetic phase synchronous coupling is the phenomenon that the coupling is enhanced when the secondary side of the loosely coupled coil resonates. The most basic resonant inductive coupling consists of one drive coil on the primary side and one resonance circuit on the secondary side.[2] In this case, when the resonant state on the secondary side is observed from the primary side, two resonances as a pair are observed.[3] One of them is called the antiresonant frequency (parallel resonant frequency), and the other is called the resonant frequency (series resonant frequency). The short-circuit inductance and resonant capacitor of the secondary coil are combined into a resonant circuit.[4] When the primary coil is driven with a resonance frequency (serial resonance frequency), the phases of the magnetic fields of the primary coil and the secondary coil are synchronized. In this state, the amount of mutual flux increases. As a result, the maximum voltage is generated in the secondary coil and efficiency improves.
--Discharger1016 (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree the above details (the more complicated equivalent circuit of the secondary and its action as a transmission line) should be included in the article, I just don't think they need to be in the introductory section Tesla coil#Operation. They are not necessary to the simple explanation of the circuit in the "Operation" section, and will be incomprehensible to general readers who don't have an electronics education. I am writing an advanced section to go below the "Operation" section called "Circuit theory" which is the appropriate place for these details. --ChetvornoTALK 16:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Circuit diagram

(moved from my Talk page --ChetvornoTALK 16:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC))

parallel resonant type structure

There is one matter I would like to ask of you. The primary side circuit of Tesla coil has series resonance type and parallel resonance type, but your description is parallel resonance type. Actually, parallel resonance type is called voltage resonance circuit. It is bad combination with the resonant circuit on the secondary side. Would you please rewrite this diagram to serial resonance type if possible?--Neotesla (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean exchange the capacitor (C1) and the spark gap (SG)? That does seem to be a more common circuit in modern Tesla coils. The reason I used the parallel circuit is that Tesla's and Elihu Thomson's original coils were this type. Do you have a reliable source that the series circuit is better? I believe I read somewhere that with the series circuit if the transformer (T) does not have sufficient leakage inductance its current will keep the spark going and it will never extinguish. --ChetvornoTALK 15:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent additions to History section

Two new sections, Tuned electrical circuits and Energy transmission, were recently added to the History section. These seem to me to be redundant; the relevant content in them is already covered in the History section, so I think they should be deleted:

--ChetvornoTALK 03:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done --ChetvornoTALK 20:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Tesla coil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tesla coil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tesla coil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

How do I make a personal reference? Can someone do it for me? RE: Variable capacitor C1

I noticed my edit regarding the design and advantages of variable capacitor C1 was shot down and removed. This was very discouraging as I spent no small amount of time making this significant contribution to the discussion. I think i was shot down due to lack of references, albeit no excuse: my description was detailed enough and anyone with common sense atcually interested in Tesla coil design would recongnize immediately its feasability. ' But as far as references go, I personally observerd a device of such construction in the basement of The Franklin Institute, Philadephia, PA.

I don't know enough about HTML to incorporate refererences. I would appreciate it if the person who trounced my edit could fix that for me, and by example I might learn how it is done.

I must say that overall I'm frustrated with the "king of the mountain" attitude I find here on wiki. Don't kid yourselves: your ulterior motive is sadistic gratification in destrying good work of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysterylectricity (talk • contribs) 21:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The "ulterior motive" here is, this is people building an encyclopedia. You may want to review what Wikipedia is with an eye on WP:NOTADVICE. In general, Wikipedia is not a message board where hobbyists post helpful advice, its an encyclopedia that describes something using other sources as reference. It looks like your edits were removed because they were "advice", and therefor considered un-encyclopedic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
@Mysterylectricity: Hi, I reverted your edits. I'm sorry if it came across as "sadistic gratification in destroying the work of others"; I probably should have given more explanation for my action. I respect your desire to improve Wikipedia. Let me start again and try to explain my reasons:
  • As Fountains of Bryn Mawr said, Wikipedia's guidelines say articles are not supposed to be DIY "how to" manuals, but professional encyclopedia articles aimed at general readers (WP:NOTMANUAL). Tesla coils are a technical subject which is difficult for non-scientifically-educated readers to understand. There are limits to the size of an article (WP:SIZE). So the article should focus on explaining the basics to "noobies", before adding specialized construction techniques that would only be of interest to hobbyists (a major part of the History section that I wrote was just removed from the article on size grounds).
  • Many hobbyists edit the article every year to add their favorite tip or construction technique. You can see that the article cannot include every minor variation of Tesla coil construction and operation without becoming too big (see WP:NOTABILITY). Yours is a minor variation. Virtually all modern Tesla coils use solid dielectric or glass plate capacitors. Oil capacitors are very rare in present Tesla coils and variable ones as you describe are rarer. Your addition in the initial section of the article puts WP:UNDUE WEIGHT on a very minor construction option.
  • Your addition did not include any references (see WP:VERIFIABILITY).
I know some of the stuff currently in the article is the sort of DIY details that I said does not belong; it is a work in progress. But the vast majority of readers who come to this article will be unfamiliar with Tesla coils, and just want the basics (including basic theory). Can you see the importance of trying to focus on this? --ChetvornoTALK 05:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Lakhovsky's Multi-Wave Oscillator?

I have little knowledge of physics. I thought someone who has a background in physics and is interested in Tesla coils might be interested in this and, if it is worthy, start a Wiki page about it. If it is a fraud, that alone might make it worthy of a Wiki page to protect the public. http://lakhovsky.com/ Phantom in ca (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

A website selling an "alternative medicine" device invented by an obscure Russian engineer in 1925 that purports to be able to cure 98% of all cancers by "harmonizing" cell "vibrations". Including cancers IN PLANTS. Oh, and it also cures virus diseases, pain in the neck, shoulders, lower back, tennis elbow, pinched nerves, infected tendons, slipped disk, hernia, rheumatism, arthritis, rheumatic arthritis, infections, headaches, migraines, heart rhythm disorders and chronic fatigue syndrome. And of course blames the death of the 78 year old inventor in a "mysterious" 1942 car crash and the disappearance of his machine on a plot by the pharmaceutical industry, which suppresses "real" cancer cures in order to make more money. And buried in all these medical claims the site includes a legal disclaimer that it is not making any medical claims, does not warrant any of the information accurate, and is not liable for any use you may make of it. Then asks you to forward the webpage to friends dying of end-stage cancer. Yup, that's a fraud. --ChetvornoTALK 02:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
There is already a Wikipedia article about Georges Lakhovsky. There are thousands of quack cure websites like this. My personal feeling is that any mention of this site, even to debunk it, would give WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to a very sleazy scam. However the Lakhovsky article does not say outright that there is no evidence of his "Multi-Wave Oscillator" having health benefits. I think it would be a real service to find a reliable source that says that and add it to the article. --ChetvornoTALK 02:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Use of Tesla Coils in video games

How about writing a section about the use of Tesla Coils in video games such as Command and conquer: Red alert for example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.206.106 (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Resonant transformer?

The edit was denied because to be said that there was no reliable source, but the following explanation was convinced by User talk: FlightTime.

A reliable source exists in the Tesla coil article. Single resonant solid state Tesla coil (SRSSTC) and Dual Resonant solid state Tesla Coil (DRSSTC) are already long approved sections. It is clear that the description for the spark gap type is for the Dual Resonant type. However, the resonant transformer does not have to be Dual Resonant. So an accurate description of the resonant transformer is necessary. --Neotesla (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

By the way, what is the real definition of a resonant transformer? Isn't there a wrong assumption about a resonant transformer that it is not a resonant transformer unless it has dual resonant? I have been selling hundreds of millions or more of resonant transformers to the world, and in the application note it was described the principle of resonating only on the secondary side. --Neotesla (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The sentence you added which I reverted [4] was
"The basically resonant transformer is a single resonant type that resonates only on the secondary side, but in the spark gap type are generally dual resonant type that also resonates on the primary side."
The problems I have with this sentence are:
  • The sentence implies that only spark gap Tesla coils use double resonant transformers. In my experience this is false; the majority of solid state Tesla coil (SSTC) circuits I've seen use double resonant transformers too. The reason is that a double resonant transformer can have a higher Q and thus can produce higher voltages than a similar single resonant transformer.
  • It is off-topic which type of resonant transformer is most common or "basic" in electronics generally. This article is about Tesla coils, and dual resonant transformers are by far most common in them.
  • The sentence is not supported by sources. See WP:V: "...any material whose verifiability has been challenged... must include an inline citation that directly supports the material."
  • The sentence is awkward and ungrammatical, and nontechnical readers are not going to understand what "resonates only on the secondary side" means.
Single resonant transformers are already treated in the "Types" section. However I understand your motive in adding the sentence; perhaps this section should note that not all resonant transformers in Tesla coils are double resonant. I wouldn't mind a properly sourced unobtrusive sentence or parenthetical phrase in the section that said just that. --ChetvornoTALK 10:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2020

Please may I edit? I know lots about Nikola Tesla. 147.92.90.142 (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. JTP (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2020

//MAKING ADDITIONS TO THE FIRST PARAGRAPH TO BETTER SIMPLIFY AND EXPLAIN THE BASIC PRINCIPLES / SIGNIFIGANCE OF A TESLA COIL

// HERE IS THE UNCHANGED PARAGRAPH (HOW IT APPEARS NOW)

A Tesla coil is an electrical resonant transformer circuit designed by inventor Nikola Tesla in 1891.[1][2] It is used to produce high-voltage, low-current, high frequency alternating-current electricity.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Tesla experimented with a number of different configurations consisting of two, or sometimes three, coupled resonant electric circuits.

Tesla used these circuits to conduct innovative experiments in electrical lighting, phosphorescence, X-ray generation, high frequency alternating current phenomena, electrotherapy, and the transmission of electrical energy without wires. Tesla coil circuits were used commercially in sparkgap radio transmitters for wireless telegraphy until the 1920s,[1][10][11][12][13][14] and in medical equipment such as electrotherapy and violet ray devices. Today, their main usage is for entertainment and educational displays, although small coils are still used as leak detectors for high vacuum systems.[9][15][16]


//HERE ARE MY SUGGESTED ADDITIONS. I ATTEMPTED TO PROVIDE MORE CLEAR CUT SIMPLIFICATIONS OF THE IDEAS BEING DISCUSSED. NOT SUGGESTING TO REMOVE ANYTHING... JUST MAKE ADDITIONS TO BETTER CLARIFY FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS.

The Tesla Coil was the first system created that could wirelessly transmit electricity; it is an electrical resonant transformer circuit designed by inventor Nikola Tesla in 1891.[1][2] It is used to produce high-voltage, low-current, high frequency alternating-current electricity.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] or, in other words, a high-frequency air-core transformer(as opposed to an iron-core transformer[17])). (Air-core transformers are designed to transfer radio-frequency currents / currents used for radio transmission[18].) A Tesla coil can take a 120VAC output (for reference, this is the typical VAC (volts alternating current, see: alternating current) that is delivered via outlets to power household appliances in North America[19]) and can exponentially “step it up” to a much higher voltage, creating extremely powerful electrical fields. The “stepped – up” voltages are then discharged in the form of electrical arcs, giving them the unique ability to wirelessly transmit power. Large Tesla coils were said to be able to wirelessly light up florescent bulbs from up to 50 feet away[20]. Since the electrical field can push electrons through a florescent lightbulb (as opposed to using electrodes transferred through a wire) - even “burned out” florescent bulbs will glow as a result.

Tesla experimented with a number of different configurations consisting of two, or sometimes three, coupled resonant electric circuits. Tesla used these circuits to conduct innovative experiments in electrical lighting, phosphorescence, X-ray generation, high frequency alternating current phenomena, electrotherapy, and the transmission of electrical energy without wires. Tesla coil circuits were used commercially in sparkgap radio transmitters for wireless telegraphy until the 1920s,[1][10][11][12][13][14] and in medical equipment such as electrotherapy and violet ray devices. Today, their main usage is for entertainment and educational displays, although small coils are still used as leak detectors for high vacuum systems.[9][15][16] Michehobson (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Since you are a registered user, after 3 days you should be able to make changes to the article yourself. Although I think some of your points are important and should be in the article, I have some reservations about others:
  • "The Tesla Coil was the first system created that could wirelessly transmit electricity." This is a little inaccurate, since an ordinary transformer with its windings separated can also transmit wireless power over short distances, and was used in a few experiments before Tesla. Although the resonant transformer invented by Tesla and Elihu Thomson is used in wireless power systems today, the Tesla circuit itself is not, because of the high voltage hazards. I think something like this would be more appropriate: "Using the Tesla coil, Tesla performed some of the first experiments in wireless transmission of electricity, and the resonant transformer he invented in it is widely used today in wireless power systems, as well as many other areas of electronics."
  • The phrase "...in other words, a high-frequency air-core transformer (as opposed to an iron-core transformer..." implies to readers that the Tesla coil is just an air core transformer. The Tesla coil is a circuit consisting of a specially designed air core transformer connected to a capacitor to make a resonant transformer, and an exciting circuit that charges the capacitor and discharges it through the coil.
  • "The stepped – up voltages are then discharged in the form of electrical arcs, giving them the unique ability to wirelessly transmit power." This is pretty misleading. Arcs are only produced by coils used for entertainment, and don't have anything to do with the ability of the coil to transmit wireless power, which is due to the oscillating electric field. A Tesla coil with a large enough topload will not produce arcs, but will still light fluorescent tubes at a distance. Also the word "unique" should be removed since the Tesla coil is not the only wireless power circuit.
  • The ability of the Tesla coil to light fluorescent tubes wirelessly is an interesting demonstration at science fairs, but it is not used practically. I think it should be mentioned in the "Applications" section, but not the introduction. I wrote a lot about the uses of the circuit in entertainment and other areas, but it is now in History of the Tesla coil. (Turn of the century sideshow performers used to light candles with brush discharge from their fingertips produced by touching the terminal of a Tesla coil, as shown in that article!)
--ChetvornoTALK 23:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference PBS was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference US_Patent_454622 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Dommermuth-Costa was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference NMFL was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Serrata was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Cheney was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Constable was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Smith was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference Plesch was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Tilbury1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Ramsey 1937 175 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Mazzotto was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Sarkar was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Belohlavek was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference :0 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  16. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference :1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  17. ^ https://www.magnet-shop.com/lexikon/iron-core
  18. ^ https://www.britannica.com/technology/air-core-transformer
  19. ^ https://www.voltagevalet.com/pages/modifying-electricity#:~:text=The%20household%20electricity%20our%20North,rises%20back%20to%200%20volts.
  20. ^ Gillispie, Charles Coulston, "Dictionary of Scientific Biography;" Tesla, Nikola. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York.

"Singing" Tesla coil

@Constant314: Re your recent edit. I understand your point that this is not a separate type of excitation. However I think audio modulation capability should be mentioned in this section, as it is an increasingly common addition to entertainment Tesla coils, and general readers will wonder where it fits in. It can be made clear in the text that it is not a distinct type of excitation, but an application modification to the excitation circuits of solid state Tesla coils. --ChetvornoTALK 08:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

No objection to it being in the article. I was also considering removing Single and Dual Resonant Solid State Tesla Coil (DRSSTC) since these are also not a type of excitation. The description for DRSSTC seems unlikely, since it literally says that there is no coil in the DRSSTC. If the description is correct, then it is something that is not a Tesla coil but called a Tesla coil. But, in so far as it is solid state switching that makes a musical Tesla coil possible, I have no objection. Constant314 (talk) 09:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
No, the DRSSTC description says there is no supply transformer, the transformer in the primary circuit (T in the schematic) which produces the primary current for the Tesla transformer: "...in place of the AC high voltage transformer a DC power supply charges the capacitor...". It doesn't say there is no Tesla coil (L1, L2). This should probably be clarified with block diagrams. --ChetvornoTALK 21:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Your clarification fixes the problem.Constant314 (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Use a weapon

It is not so rare, to have tesla coils in movies refered/shown into weapon use. For example Red Alert series have an extensive use of Tesla coils. Aren't tasers a low energy tesla-coil alike weapon?

--Joujyuze (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Dr Megavolt

I just watched a documentary about Dr Megavolt who seem very relevant to the entertainment aspect of tesla coils, however my update that followed that was reverted by @Constant314 as sounding promotional. Could anyone help writing one that avoids that trap? Back ache (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Back ache: Take a look at WP:NOTCAT. Constant314 (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ajlurie2001.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

When the secondary side is resonated, the primary winding current becomes a sine wave

When the secondary side is resonated, the primary winding current becomes a sine wave. Please refer to this LTSpice simulation. Now you can read it with automatic translation. [5] Notice the third row in this figure. [6] The voltage V (center) of the primary winding is a square wave, while the current I (L1) of the primary winding is a sine wave. When the secondary side resonates, the primary side current becomes a sine wave. Did you know this phenomenon in advance? This physical facts should be described here. --Neotesla (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello. LTspice is fun, but the circuit you simulated is not the circuit in the article. Physical facts should be described here, but we should be sure of the facts. The best way to be sure of the facts is to refer to a reliable source. Anyway, the article is about Tesla coils and not about circuits. Whether the current is sinusoidal or not, is not important, but I suspect that it is not sinusoidal. Why put it in the article, if it may be wrong and makes no difference to the quality of the article? Constant314 (talk) 06:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not talking about circuits. It just mentions that if you supply a square wave to L1, the current of L1 becomes a sine wave. The current waveform on the GND side of the secondary winding of the actual SSTC is a sine wave. This is the same for slayer Exciter. I just don't have the right evidence at hand right now. If I have a little time, I can also simulate slayer Exciter. But is that so much evidence required?--Neotesla (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
There is evidence.[7] I'm sorry that it is written in Japanese and Chinese. I will translate if I have time. When the secondary side is resonated, the primary winding current becomes a sine wave even if the primary winding is driven by a square wave voltage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotesla (talk • contribs) 06:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
A simulation will never be acceptable as a reliable source. There is no point in wasting a lot of effort to prove a point that is trivial to the article. Constant314 (talk) 07:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
1. It is incorrect to deny the simulation. It is correct to point out errors in the simulation model.
2. This is an actual measurement.[8]
In any case, you need to be aware that this is a common phenomenon.--Neotesla (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
A simulation is always original research (WP:OR) which is not allowed. A personal blog is also not a reliable source. In any case, you measured waveform is not sinusoidal. Wikipedia is not the forum (WP:NOTFORUM) to discuss what is missing from your simulation. You might try the LTspice users group at [9]. Constant314 (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Let's buy a Slayer exciter from Amazon and actually measure it. That leads to a conclusion. Until then, let's put this discussion on hold. --Neotesla (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
It would still be original research and not allowed. But it would be fun. Constant314 (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Maybe you have experience using notebooks before 2007. This phenomenon that I commercialized was used there. I thought this was an already famous phenomenon that could be explained by the equivalent circuit. --Neotesla (talk) 08:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Neotesla: Are you in the business of selling Tesla coils, or parts for them, as you said in this post? Then you need to disclose your conflict-of-interest (WP:COI). Also this is not the place to discuss your WP:original research.--ChetvornoTALK 21:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I was in the leakage transformer business from the 1990s to around 2012, and it doesn't matter now. The important thing is what to do with the correct description of natural phenomena. The current discussion is whether the winding current on the primary side will be a sine wave. It is said that this is a phenomenon that generally occurs in leakage transformers. Evidence has already been shown. Is there any problem explaining what can be explained by the 3-terminal equivalent circuit? --Neotesla (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
By the way, why didn't anyone participate in the discussion about the definition of a resonant transformer? Shouldn't everyone give more insights?--Neotesla (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
You still haven't provided a source that meets Wikipedia's requirements. We can't base content on a simulation you made and self-published, or measurements you personally made. - MrOllie (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
So I'm proposing to put the discussion on hold. In any case, it would be sufficient if the number of events that many Teslacoil mamias actually measure and announce individually increases too.--Neotesla (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Everyone, don't worry, this won't appear in the table article. For reference, when I simulated Slayer Exciter, the L1 current is almost a sine wave.[10] However, since there is a delay in the switching timing, it is necessary to perform phase compensation using the progressive wave derived on the secondary winding. There are also improved products on the Alibaba market that are already aware of it. I also found some points to improve.--Neotesla (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This is just for reference. Let's eliminate the influence of switching transistors, etc., and look only at the relationship between the leakage transformer and the resonant circuit. Since it was difficult to obtain a good quality square wave (without DC bias), I combined the sine waves into a pseudo square wave. This should be enough for verification this matter.[11] When the secondary side resonates, the primary winding current becomes a sine wave. This is a common physical phenomenon and can be explained by a three-terminal equivalent circuit. It is completely doubtful whether this is an original research. Isn't it strange that everyone doesn't know?--Neotesla (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussion about improving the article. Hypothetical discussions about hypothetical circuits are not useful here. Constant314 (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
So I am advising you to actually measure it. Maybe you also have acquaintances, you should have the opportunity to actually measure it somewhere. In fact, I made many products, and the primary winding current form was close to a sine wave.--Neotesla (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
This talk page is for proposing improvements to the article. Improvements to the article must be cited to reliable sources. It doesn't matter if we can measure the effect for ourselves, it only matters if sources from reputable publishers have written about it. We care about what we can source, not what we can measure. MrOllie (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I understand it. But, although there are many ghostly books about Tesla coils, I don't think there are any books that describe the truth. How to solve this matter?--Neotesla (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
If no one else has written about it, Wikipedia should not write about it either. MrOllie (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
It is out of scope for Wikipedia. See: WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Constant314 (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Let's wait. When will it be ...--Neotesla (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Will CQ Publishing be a reliable source?[12][13]--Neotesla (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources in English covering driven tuned circuits, why is a Japanese source necessary? This is not exactly rocket science. And I don't see the relevance of this entire thread. Neotesla, what text changes do you want to make to the article? --ChetvornoTALK 15:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The issue was whether or not the description that the current waveform of the primary winding becomes a sine wave will be accepted. [14] At first I emphasized the facts, but more importantly is whether they are reliable sources. Unfortunately, I said no book on the Tesla coil would mention that this current would be a sine wave. So far, only Japanese electronics magazines can be seen as a reliable source that this current is a sine wave.--Neotesla (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Seems to be a case of WP:SPA, WP:NOTHERE, possibly WP:COI --ChetvornoTALK 22:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Please explain each reason in detail. --Neotesla (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Or, In this case, all we have to do is find one reliable source. Why do you spread the discussion over there?--Neotesla (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
If the "There are plenty of sources in English covering driven tuned circuits" you say is true, show me some examples. That would be more constructive. And the end of the discussion is early. --Neotesla (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
You must have a reliable source that actually says what you want to add to the article and in this case, since it has been reverted, you will need a talk page consensus. Constant314 (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
So I can't write to the article until a consensus is reached. I hope you will find a reliable source of English together. --Neotesla (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Figure 36 shows that even if the drive voltage is a square wave, the current waveform of the transformer primary winding becomes a sine wave. [15] --Neotesla (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

About current phase feedback

What is fed back to the SRSSTC switching means is the current and the current phase. The basic blocks of the SRSSTC circuit are the same as in FIG. 4 of this patent specification. [16] And when claim 7 is read, it says "current detecting means for detecting a phase of current flowing through the secondary winding of the step-up transformer, the current detecting means comprising an element connected in series with the secondary winding". That would be obvious.--Neotesla (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

In addition, there is descripted that "The coupling capacitor Cc is to cut the direct current flowing through the step-up transformer primary winding when the switching timing of the full-bridge type circuit is off thereby losing the balance. It should be noted that, in the present invention, the coupling capacitor Cc preferably has a large enough capacity and a method which does not interfere with resonance is recommended.". So Cc is not a resonant capacitor.--Neotesla (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Not a reliable source (WP:PATENTS), and says nothing about Tesla coils. We're now well into WP:DISRUPT. --ChetvornoTALK 16:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
You said that "There are plenty of sources in English covering driven tuned circuits" , but is it not easy to find? I was delighted that I thought you find looking for it together. --Neotesla (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Cannot the Tesla coil be physically generalized as a transformer which have a low coupling coefficient? Do you recognize the Tesla coil as a special physical phenomenon? --Neotesla (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is suspicious of WP:NPOV. Does it make sense to continue this discussion any further?--Neotesla (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

No. --ChetvornoTALK 01:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
You need to answer the last question in order for us to continue the discussion. If the Tesla coil can be physically generalized as a leakage transformer, the area of search for reliable sources will be widened, which will contribute to improving the quality of articles. However, if the Tesla coil cannot be physically generalized as a leakage transformer, the reliable source will be limited to ghostly books and the quality of the article will be reduced.--Neotesla (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Cannot the Tesla coil be physically generalized as a transformer which have a low coupling coefficient?

Or is it recognized the Tesla coil as a special physical phenomenon? --Neotesla (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Stick with what reliable sources say. Also, Wikipedia is not a technical manual or a how-to manual. Finally, and purely speculatively my part, I suspect that the primary to secondary coupling capacitance is a significant circuit element. Constant314 (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tesla_coil/Archive_2&oldid=1120075992"